Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes you can, just as much as you assume they have always been constant. Also, I believe scientists use computer programs to measure, develop and support their models involving physical laws so don't be too quick to shoot holes. You seem to be illustrating that the laws of physics trump everything, including the law of God (His word). The Bible is a good form of justification for considering that physical laws may not have been the same. Where do you think physical laws came from? Answer: God created them. If He created them, this means at one time they didn't exist. I understand you hold science almighty and physics in high regard but also you must admit you cannot prove your position to be true that physical laws have remained constant through all time, it is an assumption scientists make. I assume it is possible physical laws were not always the same, but not because I wish that to be so. We have a book from God that shows they very well may not have been. What books do you have that say they were always constant all the way back to time=zero, who are the authors?Plate tectonics is not a computer program. Physics is not a computer program either.
You just cant...assume that physics was completely different in the past. Not without some form of justification.
Naturalism, uniformitarinism, God not present... all assumptions you are making. Bible says God was sorry he created man and would blot him out from the face of the earth; God did it, not a natural event... but there can be natural consequences to supernatural causes - all mankind except Noah and his family were in fact blotted out.For example...
Young earthers often propose that pangea existed at the onset of the flood, and with the fountains of the deep, blasting out of the center of pangea, the continents were split.
Ok, and so what is proposed is an expedited continental drift. On an order of magnitude that is over ~100,000 times faster than anything experienced today.
Now imagine, India, moving north, into Asia, 100,000 times the rate it is today. 100,000 times the pressure, 100,000 times the heat.
Why would the speed be constant? If a meteor splashes down in the ocean at thousands of miles/hr, does the radial blast continue to spread out at the same rate of speed as it spreads out? No, it is absorbed by the surrounding water and terrain and slows down.Thats continental drift at perhaps a 4 miles per year. a mile every 3 months. Which is 60 feet every day.
And, you might think well, 60 feet isnt that far. But when its one continent moving into another, this is pretty radical. And in this, rocks would, easily metamorphose. There would be no...sedimentary rocks. There would be no 30 degree angle compressional fault systems spanning hundreds of miles, it would all be annihilated.
So yes, young earthers do defy physics, they defy plate tectonics.
Sure it can be misjudged, you just misjudged by using incorrect arguments assuming a constant rate of continental speed when in fact the speed would have very likely been rapid when the fountains of the deep first burst forth and the continents would have slowed down as the impact was absorbed. I'm not a physicist, but am pretty sure the continents would not have remained at a constant rate of speed. Also, it doesn't mean that everything we know about physics is wrong, everything we know as it operates today may be perfectly right, today, now. You have noAnd this cant be misjudged. Unless literally everything we know about physics is wrong. Even something as simple as just light coming from the stars, and travelling at the speed of light. They believe that God sped light up so it would reach us, but then slowed it down so we wouldnt realize that it was once sped up.
You have no support whatsoever that can authoritatively insist all physical laws can only have been constant through all time. In contrast, the Bible shows us that God created the laws and He created everything in His timing, in His way - not in the way scientists would otherwise insist it be done. Now I'm not saying I know exactly what God did or how He did it (nobody knows), but He certainly could have and in order to create everything in 6 days would seem to require some 'bending of the rules'. God knows what He did, how He did it, when He did it, and why He did it and without getting into the details of the what & how, He loves us as His children enough to tell us the general when (6 days) and the why (because He loves us and for His glory). And right, it won't make sense if you assume God is confined to only accomplish things through slow/natural, post-creation, means.And when we watch light travel in space, we can see how fast it used to travel. But God still allegedly sped it up and slowed it down and made it look as if it never changed.
It just doesnt make any sense.
Saw it coming as well:@NobleMouse
I would recommend reading about that supernova, in which light was viewed during the initial explosion, as well as when it interacted with particles further away from the original source of light.
Im not sure if you know what I am referring to, but even in space at great distances, and millions of years ago, we can view events transpiring with physics just as they occur here and now.
These ideas...just arent biblical either. This idea of creating stars, speeding up light, then slowing it down. Or creating continents, speeding them up, then slowing them down. Or even...here is another one,
predictions made in the fossil record based on genetic relatedness. So, now God is also speeding up descent with modification, but slowing it down as soon as we turn to look at it.
Like a trick. The continents are sped up in their motion, but are slowed down and their fractures and chemistry give the appearance that they were never fast. Why wouldnt a rock metamorphose when speeding at 60 feet a day into another continent? All of physics must have just been different.
But theres more, there are rocks that form under extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures, and we have some of them, but they are far older than 99% of rocks we have here on earth. So its not like we wouldnt know if such a thing existed. The oldest rocks on earth, played by the same rules as they do now, and they show us this with their chemistry.
But again, YECs just throw everything, all physics and reality, out of the window.
Not to derail the topic... but if we might take a brief detourOne more note too, superpositionally, over half of the better understood post precambrian geology (500-200 million years), pre dates the mid atlantic rift basin (200 million years to present), and rests below rocks formed from the rift. So even if the rift were somehow a product of the flood, you would still have 66% of post precambrian rock to explain prior to the flood. Which makes up 99% of the rocks discussed in my old earth geology part 1 and part 2 posts.
Numerically, there are simply too many operations presented in the earth for them to have occurred due to a global flood or in any short period of time.
This is the basis of my argument for part 1 and part 2.
Not to derail the topic... but if we might take a brief detour
So physical laws of nature reign supreme. Question: Was Jesus born of a virgin as the prophesies foretold? If you believe so, then know that this violates physical laws (albeit not plate tectonics, but physical laws none the less). If you believe not, then this violates the prophesy that He would be born of a virgin and therefore is not the son of God.
Yes, iron sharpening iron has no end - it is a continual process. Thank you!You do realize this discussion has no conclusion? By all means continue, lol!
GBTG
The Bible is not a book of science. Plus, it was written long before the scientific revolution. The scientific method provides a way to determine truth and knowledge about such things. Science agrees the earth is old. The only disagreement is with Christians who reject science, and who think they can discover scientific truth in an unscientific book.It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be.
Christianity does not require doctrinal unity in anything except the non-essentials, such things as the Nicene Creed and the Trinity. Christian unity occurs in the spiritual realm by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those who are redeemed.How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint.
I agree that when there is direct observation of natural events occurring (like a meteor striking the earth), we'll see physical laws in action. Going back to the forecast model analogy, God designed physical laws, so we will see them in action as this is how the physical universe was intended to function. I also agree that the earth is not a solid chunk of rock - as God said, He laid down the foundations of the earth. Observation and scripture line up.Physical laws, i would say, do reign supreme, when there is observation of features that conclude that they have operated.
If there was no subsurface geology. If the earth were all just one blob of...granite, and there were no layers or moving continents or anything, by all means, I'd probably agree that the earth was young. But because we can observe features that indicate the occurrence of events that operate through those laws, it is therefore justified to believe they occurred.
Another example, you brought up meteors. There is typically shocked quartz at meteorite impact sites. Because physics demonstrates through testing, how shocked quartz forms, it is feasible to believe that a meteorite creates it if it is in an impact zone. As opposed to believing that God just made it look that way, without actually having it impacted by a meteorite.
And this is the case, regardless of anything else. This is the case regardless of what religion we are, regardless of what miracles we believe in. Because it is foundational to...understanding our existence. How could existence ever be understood, if we could not recognize that shocked quartz in an impact zone was the result of heat and pressure from the meteorize that made the crater? Ask yourself what kind of world we would live in, if this logic could not be accepted?
We would be unable to understand anything at all. And, no offense to you mouse, but I think thats where a lot of young earthers are. They cannot make sense of the earth or anything in it, because their way of deriving solutions, is...compromised. Which is why nobody has taken on the challenges of my old earth posts. They arent able because they cant logically put the pieces together. But old earthers can, and when you do, it makes sense and allows for a massive amount of predictive power and explanation. Just like physicists who fly robots to mars, we've gained such a great understanding of the earth, we geologists can fly to pluto (in geologic terms).
[\QUOTE]
No need to go to the opposite extreme where you say you cannot trust physical laws at all. They do exist and are reliable. As I've already demonstrated; however, a wrong conclusion can be drawn when assuming only natural laws are in place. Like the earth, Jesus was made up of physical matter and looked completely normal and human, but Joseph was in fact not his biological father - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Every miracle ever documented is a demonstration of physical laws not reigning supreme. I get the sense that you do not believe the physical universe and the earth were created in the same miraculous fashion as when Jesus spoke and raised Lazarus from the dead.
Scripture does not change in what it says or what it means just because you or I change what we believe about the physical universe (the truth of God's existence is not negated because the Atheist does not believe), but I understand scripture is reinterpreted so that the two can reconcile in a logical fashion. I am familiar with BioLogos and their views on scripture. I'm not sure whether any there directly reject scripture, but think they probably redefine what it means to allow scripture and conclusions drawn from research to agree. While logic and fact-based reasoning may be among the hallmarks of science, it does seem somewhat illogical (IMO) to then find those who assume physical laws are not supreme when it comes to things like Jesus' birth from a virgin (i.e. it was supernatural), but then turn around and say supernatural causes don't and cannot happen elsewhere, though we're told so in the creation account.So, this should be recognized. Then when it is recognized, and only after it is recognized, do we then examine...the next question. And that is...ok, we understand that the earth is old, now what does that mean about scripture.
But we cannot dwelve into faith based subjection, without first establishing our foundation of knowledge before hand.
And what we derive in our search for faith based answers, is the next challenge for Christians. Some might still believe that Jesus and the virgin birth is a miracle, despite the earth being old (such ash Christians of biologos BioLogos). Some might reject that, and may come up with some sort of...allegorical meaning behind it, some might have other beliefs. But regardless of what path you choose, it is important to have a foundation of knowledge to help you derive that answer beforehand. Otherwise, you will miss out on seeing Gods original creation, earth, as it truly is.
That said, I want to pause to agree and concede that we can be equally convicted to believe in what we believe - without having all the facts perfectly known and sorted out mentally. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. As I'll happily continue to repeat over and over: you, nor your professors, nor their professors, etc... ever saw the beginning of the world, never saw the alleged millions/billions of years of rock layers, never saw the Grand Canyon form from beginning to end - but you are convicted this is all true none the less, with a degree of faith added too - yes, just as observing a physical Jesus would wrongly conclude natural conception, knowing your observation of rocks cannot definitively be asserted as only a natural causality (because there are also supernatural cases at work in the universe), there is an element of faith that bridges the gap to accept that it is only by slow natural means that the Earth has arrived at its state today. That is a fair enough position, for it is by grace through faith we both have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and likewise it also requires a degree of faith for me to accept my position as well. I can go on and on supporting my position with scripture and likewise can point out geological/biological/astrological evidence for support in this position, but knowing you'll disagree with all of the conclusions that support this position I'll forego doing so knowing you are quite capable of looking them up just as I can look up mainstream scientific theory.
Thank you brother and enjoy the weekend!
The Bible is not a book of science. Plus, it was written long before the scientific revolution. The scientific method provides a way to determine truth and knowledge about such things. Science agrees the earth is old. The only disagreement is with Christians who reject science, and who think they can discover scientific truth in an unscientific book.
Thank you for your insightful comments.Where we find the problem is that people say the Bible is the truth. We have just established that religion is a principle of faith (believing without evidence), so it per definition cannot be the truth. Not objectively at least. Just the same as scientific books are never the truth. Not the objective final truth. New evidence can always change that viewpoint. Religion can only put itself on the same level as sience if it uses the same standard of truth finding that science does.
Also @NobleMouse
Belief in one miracle shouldnt be used as justification for...disregarding science en masse. Which is essentially what is happening here. YEC disregards plate tectonics, it disregards all of geology, and in that, disregards things like discoveries in biogeography and even fundamentals of biology (it throws out biogeographic distributions and processes contributing to common descent), and physics (it defys things like thermodynamics, kinematics and a number of laws related to electromagnetism and fundamental physics as a whole). YEC literally throws countless scientific finds across multiple fields, out the window.
And not only does it deny all of these, it denies them all, after they have already collectively discovered the age of the earth, and have cross referenced and confirmed one another to produce that discovery. Its one thing to propose its all false before discoveries were made, but we have this down now, and YEC is like going backwards. Its like trying to go back to newtonian physics after you already have discovered relativity.
I think that...if people are willing to believe the earth is 6000 years old, then they are really able to believe just about anything, so long as it is written in scripture. Which sounds fine at first, until you realize that people of other religions are in the same position where they will literally believe anything, so long as they believe it is clearly written in their respective book of faith.
Thank you for your insightful comments.
I'm using the philosophical definition of truth, as a branch of metaphysics. Using induction and abduction can, at best, lead to highly probably knowledge and truth. And I should mention; science isn't continually changing its truth claims but, rather, adding on new with more detail as observations get more accurate.
The scientific method doesn't work in the spiritual realm so, naturally, you can't derive spiritual truth using it. And Bible interpretation isn't trustworthy either as demonstrated by the myriads of contradictory interpretations. We have to trust our own assessment of the data: the Bible texts, their correspondence with science and archaeology, writings of early church fathers and other writers of the time, of course the Nicene Creed, observing how the ideas worked out in history, and etc. Christians are too eager to insist the Bible says such and such, and then to argue incessantly with those who say, "no it doesn't".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?